Sony vs. Kottke
December 2, 2004 8:02 AM Subscribe
Jeopardy Going After Kottke. Jason Kottke has served as the web's source of news about Ken Jennings and Jeopardy, with his most-linked blog entries being his September report of Jennings' impending loss and his Sunday provision of the actual audio of Kennings' loss. Now Sony is taking legal action against him for his spoilers, and this makes him very sad.
D'oh. I meant to use it twice (title, end).
Yet, somehow...life goes on.
posted by waldo at 8:09 AM on December 2, 2004
Yet, somehow...life goes on.
posted by waldo at 8:09 AM on December 2, 2004
I'm on his side, I guess, on this, but did he not assume that posting those things just MIGHT piss off SONY? I mean, come on, he's not stupid and he's not an infant. If he's suddenly very concerned about whether he can keep up kottke, then he only has to place a little bit of the blame on himself. If you go to a gunpowder factory and light a cigarette, you should not be too surprised when something blows up. His argument that the New York Times can afford to defend themselves is true, but so is the fact that they know the risks they can take because they can defend themselves. Likewise, Kottke should know how far he can risk it given his available resources. You wanna draw eyeballs, or PR, or attention, or whatever, be prepared for the consequences. Otherwise, maybe let it go and realize life goes on. I mean, it's jeopardy for christ's sake, it's not like he's revealing Abu Ghraib injustices here. Let's choose our battles wisely.
posted by spicynuts at 8:14 AM on December 2, 2004
posted by spicynuts at 8:14 AM on December 2, 2004
Does somebody want to explain to me the legal basis Sony has for trying to slap down Kottke? I presume that the audience member who gave Kottke his info obviously had a non-disclosure clause as part of his ticket admission, and he broke that clause. Pretty straightforward. But God knows Kottke never signed anything of the sort, so what can Sony charge him with? Does Sony own the copyrights on eyewitness accounts of their television shows? And if so, JUST HOW FUCKED HAVE WE ALLOWED THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO GET, he said, in all caps?
posted by logovisual at 8:30 AM on December 2, 2004
posted by logovisual at 8:30 AM on December 2, 2004
The legal basis is: I can send you a Cease and Desist for anything I want. If you want to resist me and risk ending up in court, or sue me for fraud or harassment or any other such offenses, it'll be on your dime.
Unless lawyers become free (as in beer), there's no way around it. Legal proceedings cost money.
I rolled over to a DC Comics C&D order over my extremely minor Half-Life mod "Kill Batman"
posted by Plutor at 8:34 AM on December 2, 2004
Unless lawyers become free (as in beer), there's no way around it. Legal proceedings cost money.
I rolled over to a DC Comics C&D order over my extremely minor Half-Life mod "Kill Batman"
posted by Plutor at 8:34 AM on December 2, 2004
Do you think the big deal is publishing the audio of the show? Freedom of speech doesn't mean I can distribute copywritten material, right?
posted by sexymofo at 8:35 AM on December 2, 2004
posted by sexymofo at 8:35 AM on December 2, 2004
uh-huh, I find that a bit odd too.
A friend of mine was just on Jeopardy, she knows quite a lot of what will happen, she's signed a non-disclosure, and she's tightlipped as heck, even under tickle-torture.
posted by dabitch at 8:35 AM on December 2, 2004
A friend of mine was just on Jeopardy, she knows quite a lot of what will happen, she's signed a non-disclosure, and she's tightlipped as heck, even under tickle-torture.
posted by dabitch at 8:35 AM on December 2, 2004
Boo Hoo Kotke. Just be all, I'll take Anal Bum Cover for a thousand Alex and the internet will rally around you and pass the hat to get Ron Kuby to defend you.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:37 AM on December 2, 2004
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:37 AM on December 2, 2004
I'm also "on his side" in the sense that "I like him and hope this doesn't hurt him."
But this was a pretty big risk to take over something as trivial as that-guy-who-wins-lotsa-Jeopardy.
posted by scarabic at 8:37 AM on December 2, 2004
But this was a pretty big risk to take over something as trivial as that-guy-who-wins-lotsa-Jeopardy.
posted by scarabic at 8:37 AM on December 2, 2004
See, I figured it was just so much potentially-costly bluffery, but this is Kottke. You'd think that the Electronic Frontier Foundation or any of the various copyfighter organizations out there would be chomping at the bit to take a case this high-profile -- he is one of the most popular weblogs in the world, after all -- and what are the odds that Sony would actually bring the case to court if they saw that Kottke did, indeed, have legal representation, and from an organization that makes it their job to deal with frivolous bullshit exactly like this?
posted by logovisual at 8:43 AM on December 2, 2004
posted by logovisual at 8:43 AM on December 2, 2004
What laws / agreements did Jason violate?
This is just a very very large corporation slapping down someone because they can.
posted by bshort at 8:46 AM on December 2, 2004
This is just a very very large corporation slapping down someone because they can.
posted by bshort at 8:46 AM on December 2, 2004
What is there even to discuss? We have no idea what the details are, other than a C&D from Sony.
posted by smackfu at 8:46 AM on December 2, 2004
posted by smackfu at 8:46 AM on December 2, 2004
Personal opinion: spoilers suck. Sony has a pretty vested interest in keeping its viewers in the dark -- that way they have to keep tuning in (and watching all those commercials) to see if *this* is the time Jennings fails. But I'd imagine they have the same legal recourse that Mirimax had when Siskel spoiled The Crying Game, which is to say, none.
I rolled over to a DC Comics C&D order over my extremely minor Half-Life mod "Kill Batman"
Just 'torrent it and throw it on SuprNova for all of posterity. Let's see them stop that!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:52 AM on December 2, 2004
I rolled over to a DC Comics C&D order over my extremely minor Half-Life mod "Kill Batman"
Just 'torrent it and throw it on SuprNova for all of posterity. Let's see them stop that!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:52 AM on December 2, 2004
I'd never watched Jeopardy in my life until Jason started blogging about it. I probably watched two dozen episodes over Jennings' run. I wouldn't have seen any of them if Kottke hadn't blogged about them.
posted by waldo at 8:55 AM on December 2, 2004
posted by waldo at 8:55 AM on December 2, 2004
Sony has a pretty vested interest in keeping its viewers in the dark
you would think so, but they didn't try very hard -- they booked Ken on Letterman, not to mention every morning show & radio program was announcing "watch Jeopardy tonight, tonight's the night!"
posted by palegirl at 8:55 AM on December 2, 2004
you would think so, but they didn't try very hard -- they booked Ken on Letterman, not to mention every morning show & radio program was announcing "watch Jeopardy tonight, tonight's the night!"
posted by palegirl at 8:55 AM on December 2, 2004
There simply must be an army of web-savvy, blogger-friendly lawyers who would be willing to represent Kottke with this.
posted by crunchland at 8:58 AM on December 2, 2004
posted by crunchland at 8:58 AM on December 2, 2004
"Pretty big risk to take?" Is this what freedom of speech has come to, that we can't f***ing post in our blogs the exact same words that appear in newspapers?
"Choose our battles wisely?" If Sony and the censors can win trivially all the time by sending out C&Ds, we won't have a blogosphere capable of reporting the major stuff.
"Chomping at the bit?" The EFF has a half-dozen lawyers and can handle about 20 active cases, total. That's it. There aren't any other copyfighter organizations equipped to do litigation. They can't save our bacon all the time.
Jason did something entirely reasonable -- he found out about something interesting and blogged about it. He shouldn't be blamed for doing something socially valuable and exactly like he and other bloggers do all the time.
posted by grimmelm at 9:01 AM on December 2, 2004
"Choose our battles wisely?" If Sony and the censors can win trivially all the time by sending out C&Ds, we won't have a blogosphere capable of reporting the major stuff.
"Chomping at the bit?" The EFF has a half-dozen lawyers and can handle about 20 active cases, total. That's it. There aren't any other copyfighter organizations equipped to do litigation. They can't save our bacon all the time.
Jason did something entirely reasonable -- he found out about something interesting and blogged about it. He shouldn't be blamed for doing something socially valuable and exactly like he and other bloggers do all the time.
posted by grimmelm at 9:01 AM on December 2, 2004
crunchland: Chilling Effects. I assume Kottke knows about this, or has been told, but I suppose if someone wants to drop him a note about it, probably wouldn't hurt :)
posted by louie at 9:02 AM on December 2, 2004
posted by louie at 9:02 AM on December 2, 2004
He's a got a link to 'em in the thrice posted kottke-sad link, louie.
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:06 AM on December 2, 2004
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:06 AM on December 2, 2004
Sony may be overreaching, but there's something fundamentally different between "watch Jeopardy! tonight, Ken Jennings loses," and "Here's an mp3 of Final Jeopardy!, here's the question that he loses on, here's how each answered it, and here's how the scores end up." I don't think any newspapers or any other media source revealed that information.
Most people know and understand that distributing audio of a television program that has not yet aired (particularly one where timing and confidentiality are so important) is not proper. It's fun to get caught up in the "big corporations suck, copyright law sucks, C&D letters are frivolous" stuff, but think about what he did.
All that being said, I don't see how Sony was damaged. It alerted me (and probably lots of others) to the fact that Tuesday was the day and made me TiVo the show, and it couldn't have really caused any financial impact because it was so close to the air date.
posted by AgentRocket at 9:11 AM on December 2, 2004
Most people know and understand that distributing audio of a television program that has not yet aired (particularly one where timing and confidentiality are so important) is not proper. It's fun to get caught up in the "big corporations suck, copyright law sucks, C&D letters are frivolous" stuff, but think about what he did.
All that being said, I don't see how Sony was damaged. It alerted me (and probably lots of others) to the fact that Tuesday was the day and made me TiVo the show, and it couldn't have really caused any financial impact because it was so close to the air date.
posted by AgentRocket at 9:11 AM on December 2, 2004
Gremmelm, I wasn't blaming him, I was saying that he'd have to be pretty stupid to assume that SONY wouldn't be pissed off over what he'd done and shouldn't be surprised that he got some kind of a slapdown, no matter how impotent or unfair, from their legal department. I'm not saying he doesn't have the freedom of speech issue on his side, I'm saying there's no way he could claim that he wasn't taking a pretty big risk by spoiling what was obviously a monster publicity generator for SONY. He's basically crying, 'oh, I can't afford to defend myself, it's so unfair'. Well, come on, you slapped a hornet's nest. Either deal with the consequences or shut up. He's one of the most popular blogs on the planet...does he expect us to believe he had no idea SONY would get wind? The 'oh it's just little ole me putting up some fun stuff I found for my friends' argument doesn't cut it.
As far as a C&D being some kind of super threat to freedom of expression - oh, please. Sites like Gawker get them all the time and completely ignore them. Let's not get carried away. No legal action has been taken. But again, cry me a river, Kottke. You knowingly posted a spoiler of a hugely popular tv show. You wanna draw battle lines on censorship or blogoshpere freedom expression and this is the fight you pick? Please. It's just as shallow as the C&D from SONY.
posted by spicynuts at 9:20 AM on December 2, 2004
As far as a C&D being some kind of super threat to freedom of expression - oh, please. Sites like Gawker get them all the time and completely ignore them. Let's not get carried away. No legal action has been taken. But again, cry me a river, Kottke. You knowingly posted a spoiler of a hugely popular tv show. You wanna draw battle lines on censorship or blogoshpere freedom expression and this is the fight you pick? Please. It's just as shallow as the C&D from SONY.
posted by spicynuts at 9:20 AM on December 2, 2004
I'm with AgentRocket on this. There clearly is a distinction between posting an eyewitness account and posting snippets of the actual show. The NDA is a legal agreement between the guy in the audience and Sony. If the guy chooses to break the NDA only he can be punished by Sony. He owns the copyright on his own words and can share them with whomever he'd like. However, Sony owns the copyright on the audio and video of the actual game, and posting by posting it online you go from being a third-party in a dispute between Sony and your source to being a party to the dispute.
Anyway, that's my take on the matter. Personally, I think Sony is over-reacting a bit, and I hope this is just them trying to protect their copyright with a C & D and not something more serious.
posted by HiddenInput at 9:23 AM on December 2, 2004
Anyway, that's my take on the matter. Personally, I think Sony is over-reacting a bit, and I hope this is just them trying to protect their copyright with a C & D and not something more serious.
posted by HiddenInput at 9:23 AM on December 2, 2004
It is a little boo-hoo of Kottke to develop a massively huge readership, obviously enjoy the benefits of having a massively huge readership, and then complain when he is hit with the kind of crap that publications with massively huge readerships get hit with. A C&D letter means almost nothing--unless there is something he hasn't published--he has not yet been sued, and is very unlikely to be sued. This is simple bullying that he should ignore.
I suppose the issue is that JK does not make a lot of (any?) money off his blogging, and therefore can't defend himself. But still -- he obviously has access to all kinds of free legal help in the form of the EFF, Lessig, et al. I am certain they are already leaping to his defense.
In fact, this sort of thing is exactly what a celebrity blogger would wish for. I am sure JK will get even more publicity because of this, perhaps another write-up in the NYT or another national paper, and all kinds of attention from academics. He will also almost certainly face no legal consequences.
So, boo-hoo.
posted by Mid at 9:23 AM on December 2, 2004
I suppose the issue is that JK does not make a lot of (any?) money off his blogging, and therefore can't defend himself. But still -- he obviously has access to all kinds of free legal help in the form of the EFF, Lessig, et al. I am certain they are already leaping to his defense.
In fact, this sort of thing is exactly what a celebrity blogger would wish for. I am sure JK will get even more publicity because of this, perhaps another write-up in the NYT or another national paper, and all kinds of attention from academics. He will also almost certainly face no legal consequences.
So, boo-hoo.
posted by Mid at 9:23 AM on December 2, 2004
Having had something similar happen on a project I was working on, I do understand why Sony would be pissed about the mp3. That does seem to be a bit overboard...
The arguments that because of Kottke, you found out that Jennings was going to lose doesn't really hold water, because you have no idea how Sony planned to promote the night. I doubt that they would have just let it go by without promoting it. But they probably wanted more control over how it was reported-- it kind of takes the suspense away if you can listen to an mp3 of exactly how he lost.
but, I don't think Sony would be too smart to pursue this thing. The bottom line is that information wants to be free, and eventually, things are going to leak out... media companies have to be more careful rather then pinning the blame on one person.
on the other hand I think it's a bit disingenuous of kottke to say he's going to have to stop blogging because of his 'journalism' and lack of resources. While his main point about resources is a good one, the presence of the mp3 on his website is something that exactly zero media organizations would touch with a ten foot pole. it's clearly Sony's property and not meant to be shared.
posted by chaz at 9:27 AM on December 2, 2004
The arguments that because of Kottke, you found out that Jennings was going to lose doesn't really hold water, because you have no idea how Sony planned to promote the night. I doubt that they would have just let it go by without promoting it. But they probably wanted more control over how it was reported-- it kind of takes the suspense away if you can listen to an mp3 of exactly how he lost.
but, I don't think Sony would be too smart to pursue this thing. The bottom line is that information wants to be free, and eventually, things are going to leak out... media companies have to be more careful rather then pinning the blame on one person.
on the other hand I think it's a bit disingenuous of kottke to say he's going to have to stop blogging because of his 'journalism' and lack of resources. While his main point about resources is a good one, the presence of the mp3 on his website is something that exactly zero media organizations would touch with a ten foot pole. it's clearly Sony's property and not meant to be shared.
posted by chaz at 9:27 AM on December 2, 2004
I'd forgotten about the MP3. That must be what prompted the C&D more than anything else... and yeah, that he probably shouldn't have posted, since Sony do have clear legal ownership of the audio content of their program. The actual information about the show, however, I see no problem with.
posted by logovisual at 9:45 AM on December 2, 2004
posted by logovisual at 9:45 AM on December 2, 2004
Chaz, if it weren't for Kottke's post, I wouldn't have known about Jennings' run at all. Since I rarely watch the major networks and don't listen to much commercial radio, I probably would never have learned of it, regardless of how Sony promoted it. Kottke's coverage didn't make me tune in to watch Jennings lose, but it made me think about "Jeopardy!" for the first time in years.
Imagine if corporations or politicians or whoever were able to sue to suppress every time something leaked out that they didn't want leaked. We might *still* not know about Enron or Adelphia, and Nixon might have had a full term.
Kottke probably shouldn't have put up the audio clip until after the episode aired. Now that it has aired, however, Sony shouldn't be able to stop kottke or anyone else from posting it, provided copyright acknowledgement is posted along with the clip. It's fair use, and its release cannot harm Sony in any way I can think of.
posted by me3dia at 10:04 AM on December 2, 2004
Imagine if corporations or politicians or whoever were able to sue to suppress every time something leaked out that they didn't want leaked. We might *still* not know about Enron or Adelphia, and Nixon might have had a full term.
Kottke probably shouldn't have put up the audio clip until after the episode aired. Now that it has aired, however, Sony shouldn't be able to stop kottke or anyone else from posting it, provided copyright acknowledgement is posted along with the clip. It's fair use, and its release cannot harm Sony in any way I can think of.
posted by me3dia at 10:04 AM on December 2, 2004
I don't think any newspapers or any other media source revealed that information.
The Washington Post ran an entire transcript on Monday. But no C&D or threats to them, huh?
And I spent the morning talking with various copyfighters, who all know about this now, and everyone's trying to do what they can to help Kottke.
posted by mathowie at 10:07 AM on December 2, 2004
The Washington Post ran an entire transcript on Monday. But no C&D or threats to them, huh?
And I spent the morning talking with various copyfighters, who all know about this now, and everyone's trying to do what they can to help Kottke.
posted by mathowie at 10:07 AM on December 2, 2004
Kottke's coverage didn't make me tune in to watch Jennings lose, but it made me think about "Jeopardy!" for the first time in years.
Unfortunately, Sony doesn't make any money from people who don't watch the show... and even if Kottke did inspire 1,000 people to watch Jeopardy, it's really small potatoes to them. The reach of even a low-rated television show is still far more vast then all but the most influential bloggers.
All I'm saying is that I can understand how they might think that knowing exactly how Jennings lost, with confirmed audio, before the episode aired might discourage, not encourage, people to watch the show.
We might *still* not know about Enron or Adelphia, and Nixon might have had a full term.
If you really want to compare Enron and Watergate to a copyrighted television entertainment program, be my guest. Again, all I'm saying is that it's not unreasonable for Sony to think that they may have been damaged by having something they have invested millions of dollars in leaked, via an unauthorized audio recording.
My point is that whatever net benefit Kottke may or may not have had on the program, it's reasonable, in my opinion, for Sony to take a stand against people releasing their copyrighted material before it airs. As I said, having been involved in something tangentially similar in the past, I can understand their position. Posting rumors and information is one thing, posting audio clips is something totally different.
The Washington Post ran an entire transcript on Monday. But no C&D or threats to them, huh?
Matt (if you can comment), was the thrust of Sony's letter talking about the transcript, or the mp3? In my opinion they are two totally different things, because a transcript is a lot easier to say "this is what we've heard" whereas an mp3 is indisputably accurate, and copyrighted material.
posted by chaz at 10:33 AM on December 2, 2004
Unfortunately, Sony doesn't make any money from people who don't watch the show... and even if Kottke did inspire 1,000 people to watch Jeopardy, it's really small potatoes to them. The reach of even a low-rated television show is still far more vast then all but the most influential bloggers.
All I'm saying is that I can understand how they might think that knowing exactly how Jennings lost, with confirmed audio, before the episode aired might discourage, not encourage, people to watch the show.
We might *still* not know about Enron or Adelphia, and Nixon might have had a full term.
If you really want to compare Enron and Watergate to a copyrighted television entertainment program, be my guest. Again, all I'm saying is that it's not unreasonable for Sony to think that they may have been damaged by having something they have invested millions of dollars in leaked, via an unauthorized audio recording.
My point is that whatever net benefit Kottke may or may not have had on the program, it's reasonable, in my opinion, for Sony to take a stand against people releasing their copyrighted material before it airs. As I said, having been involved in something tangentially similar in the past, I can understand their position. Posting rumors and information is one thing, posting audio clips is something totally different.
The Washington Post ran an entire transcript on Monday. But no C&D or threats to them, huh?
Matt (if you can comment), was the thrust of Sony's letter talking about the transcript, or the mp3? In my opinion they are two totally different things, because a transcript is a lot easier to say "this is what we've heard" whereas an mp3 is indisputably accurate, and copyrighted material.
posted by chaz at 10:33 AM on December 2, 2004
btw, I think Sony's already made their point and there's no need for them to go further... the last thing you'd want to see is a blogger facing financial problems because of something that had no demonstrable effect on the program.
posted by chaz at 10:42 AM on December 2, 2004
posted by chaz at 10:42 AM on December 2, 2004
Funny how Sony doesn't seem to mind the MJ Morning show posting an "exclusive" leak of the exact same offending mp3.
posted by O9scar at 10:43 AM on December 2, 2004
posted by O9scar at 10:43 AM on December 2, 2004
Me: I don't think any newspapers or any other media source revealed that information.
#1: The Washington Post ran an entire transcript on Monday. But no C&D or threats to them, huh?
Oops. I stand corrected.
But, the transcript was run in direct response to Kottke.org's post of the mp3. The beginning of the WP article says "A dramatic two-minute audio clip that sounded like it was Jennings's entire final Final Jeopardy encounter mysteriously popped up yesterday on the Internet...The clip popped up on the Web site Kottke.org."
I'm much less convinced than I was before that Sony was acting reasonably, but I still see and understand their frustration.
posted by AgentRocket at 11:28 AM on December 2, 2004
#1: The Washington Post ran an entire transcript on Monday. But no C&D or threats to them, huh?
Oops. I stand corrected.
But, the transcript was run in direct response to Kottke.org's post of the mp3. The beginning of the WP article says "A dramatic two-minute audio clip that sounded like it was Jennings's entire final Final Jeopardy encounter mysteriously popped up yesterday on the Internet...The clip popped up on the Web site Kottke.org."
I'm much less convinced than I was before that Sony was acting reasonably, but I still see and understand their frustration.
posted by AgentRocket at 11:28 AM on December 2, 2004
Here's another example of something bloggers do, republish leak stories: Joystik is posting an internal email from EA sports about their sweatshop labor practices.
What that is and what Kottke did are pretty close to what newspapers and radio shows and TV networks do all the time -- people get a hold of some interesting news tidbit, and they share it with readers.
I'd love to see Kottke be the test case for blogging, whether a court would see this as journalism and offer the same protections and responsibilities that newspapers get.
posted by mathowie at 11:32 AM on December 2, 2004
What that is and what Kottke did are pretty close to what newspapers and radio shows and TV networks do all the time -- people get a hold of some interesting news tidbit, and they share it with readers.
I'd love to see Kottke be the test case for blogging, whether a court would see this as journalism and offer the same protections and responsibilities that newspapers get.
posted by mathowie at 11:32 AM on December 2, 2004
yes, but what I'm saying is that no media outlet would play a clip or any other unauthorized recording of the show. A transcript is a different matter... it ceases being a news tidbit when you leak unauthorized content. If joystiq was releasing unauthorized video of Madden 2006, they'd be in a different position... something courts have actually made fairly clear.
unless of course they really are sending the C and D based on the transcript-- in my mind they are totally distinct.
posted by chaz at 11:37 AM on December 2, 2004
unless of course they really are sending the C and D based on the transcript-- in my mind they are totally distinct.
posted by chaz at 11:37 AM on December 2, 2004
sony has no vested interest, because there is no person named sony involved. a corporation is a legal construct.
posted by quonsar at 11:50 AM on December 2, 2004
posted by quonsar at 11:50 AM on December 2, 2004
While I understand the "news" aspect of the fact that Jennings was going down, the mp3 of course was toeing the line more than a bit.
But isn't even the transcript a bit touchy? Or can I go see a movie the night of it's release, bring a laptop, and release a word-for-word transcript to the internet that very evening?
posted by rafter at 11:51 AM on December 2, 2004
But isn't even the transcript a bit touchy? Or can I go see a movie the night of it's release, bring a laptop, and release a word-for-word transcript to the internet that very evening?
posted by rafter at 11:51 AM on December 2, 2004
sony has no vested interest, because there is no person named sony involved. a corporation is a legal construct.
If only that were true in this reality as well.
posted by rschroed at 12:00 PM on December 2, 2004
If only that were true in this reality as well.
posted by rschroed at 12:00 PM on December 2, 2004
A friend of mine was just on Jeopardy, she knows quite a lot of what will happen, she's signed a non-disclosure, and she's tightlipped as heck, even under tickle-torture.
Interesting. I was on J! in 2001 and, as far as I can remember, didn't sign an NDA. (Which I remember thinking was odd, given all the other things we had to sign.) They repeatedly urged us, in very strong terms, not to say what happened, but as best as I can recall, we didn't sign anything saying we wouldn't.
posted by Vidiot at 12:03 PM on December 2, 2004
Interesting. I was on J! in 2001 and, as far as I can remember, didn't sign an NDA. (Which I remember thinking was odd, given all the other things we had to sign.) They repeatedly urged us, in very strong terms, not to say what happened, but as best as I can recall, we didn't sign anything saying we wouldn't.
posted by Vidiot at 12:03 PM on December 2, 2004
But the WaPo only released the transcript of a couple of lines from the climax of the movie. Fair use in my POV. A spoiler, yes, but fair. INAL
posted by rschroed at 12:03 PM on December 2, 2004
posted by rschroed at 12:03 PM on December 2, 2004
chaz: yes, but what I'm saying is that no media outlet would play a clip or any other unauthorized recording of the show.
That's because compared to the hassle of having to defend against a baseless copyright complaint, just summarizing the content is enough for their purposes, not because the law is clearly on the side of the Sonys of the world. It's the same reason that publishers ask permisssion to print even two lines from a poem.
We don't always feel bad for the media outlets and the publishers because they seem big and impersonal. But Jason is a guy with a day job and a blog. Sony found him faster because he has a big readership, but they have a reasonable history of C&D'ing smaller fish, too.
They could come for any of us. If Sony can make Jason remove a transcript of what, fifty words, there are probably hundreds of companies that could come and C&D MetaFilter tomorrow.
posted by grimmelm at 12:10 PM on December 2, 2004
That's because compared to the hassle of having to defend against a baseless copyright complaint, just summarizing the content is enough for their purposes, not because the law is clearly on the side of the Sonys of the world. It's the same reason that publishers ask permisssion to print even two lines from a poem.
We don't always feel bad for the media outlets and the publishers because they seem big and impersonal. But Jason is a guy with a day job and a blog. Sony found him faster because he has a big readership, but they have a reasonable history of C&D'ing smaller fish, too.
They could come for any of us. If Sony can make Jason remove a transcript of what, fifty words, there are probably hundreds of companies that could come and C&D MetaFilter tomorrow.
posted by grimmelm at 12:10 PM on December 2, 2004
One angle I haven't seen mentioned here is that Jason might not be the target of a suit, but tangled in whatever legal actions Sony might be taking against whoever violated the NDA, assuming there was one. Just speculatin'.
All I'm saying is that I can understand how they might think that knowing exactly how Jennings lost, with confirmed audio, before the episode aired might discourage, not encourage, people to watch the show.
Bah. This is basically the same argument the RIAA uses when they say downloading hurts record sales, when in fact there's plenty of evidence that it increases them.
IMO this basically boils down to entertainment companies harrassing fans for being fans. Does anyone here really think Jason posted the leaked info in order to damage Jeopardy/Sony? Geez, I think not.
BTW, schadenfreude is, like, so 2000. Get over it already.
posted by scottandrew at 12:10 PM on December 2, 2004
All I'm saying is that I can understand how they might think that knowing exactly how Jennings lost, with confirmed audio, before the episode aired might discourage, not encourage, people to watch the show.
Bah. This is basically the same argument the RIAA uses when they say downloading hurts record sales, when in fact there's plenty of evidence that it increases them.
IMO this basically boils down to entertainment companies harrassing fans for being fans. Does anyone here really think Jason posted the leaked info in order to damage Jeopardy/Sony? Geez, I think not.
BTW, schadenfreude is, like, so 2000. Get over it already.
posted by scottandrew at 12:10 PM on December 2, 2004
I think that the folks from Sony are being bullies. Still, Kottke was skating on thin ice and should have been aware he was doing so.
It's absolutely true that Sony didn't own the information about Jennings's last game--they can't get Kottke on that, they can only pursue whoever it was who violated whatever agreement Sony had made them sign.
However, Sony does own the audio content of the program. Even if they thought Kottke was a good egg, they would be ill-served to let someone very publicly rebroadcast their copyrighted material without their permission. It would just encourage the others.
If Kottke puts up a PayPal link for a defense fund, I'll toss him a few bucks because I hate to see megacorporations pushing around one-person shops. But posting an MP3 of high-profile copyrighted material is a really foolish idea.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:13 PM on December 2, 2004
It's absolutely true that Sony didn't own the information about Jennings's last game--they can't get Kottke on that, they can only pursue whoever it was who violated whatever agreement Sony had made them sign.
However, Sony does own the audio content of the program. Even if they thought Kottke was a good egg, they would be ill-served to let someone very publicly rebroadcast their copyrighted material without their permission. It would just encourage the others.
If Kottke puts up a PayPal link for a defense fund, I'll toss him a few bucks because I hate to see megacorporations pushing around one-person shops. But posting an MP3 of high-profile copyrighted material is a really foolish idea.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:13 PM on December 2, 2004
What's the mystery? If you post copyrighted material on a website and make a big deal about doing just that, you're going to get nailed.
If you sneak a video camera into the next taping of Will & Grace (no clue if they even do live tapings, but moot point) then post the video on your website a week later with: "Find out what's going to happen on next weeks Will & Grace!!", don't feign surprise when NBC sends a C&D. Especially when you're flaunting the fact ala "Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, TVWeek!". Just because it's Kottke or whoever doesn't make it OK, and just because it happened on a weblog doesn't make it a 'free speech' or media issue.
If anything, he's lucky they didn't send the C&D to his hosting provider who probably would have shut his site down first and asked questions later. Then he'd have no soap box to complain from at all. But then people wouldn't have anywhere to direct their faux rage.
posted by djc at 12:44 PM on December 2, 2004
If you sneak a video camera into the next taping of Will & Grace (no clue if they even do live tapings, but moot point) then post the video on your website a week later with: "Find out what's going to happen on next weeks Will & Grace!!", don't feign surprise when NBC sends a C&D. Especially when you're flaunting the fact ala "Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, TVWeek!". Just because it's Kottke or whoever doesn't make it OK, and just because it happened on a weblog doesn't make it a 'free speech' or media issue.
If anything, he's lucky they didn't send the C&D to his hosting provider who probably would have shut his site down first and asked questions later. Then he'd have no soap box to complain from at all. But then people wouldn't have anywhere to direct their faux rage.
posted by djc at 12:44 PM on December 2, 2004
I can't believe how much flippancy is on display here. This affects all of us.
First of all, if the continuing legal issues are based on copyright, I'm really angry. It is frivolous and ridiculous if a copyright violation with a possible fair use exemption is pursued beyond a takedown notice that is complied with.
If it's based on extracting information about the origin of the leak from Kottke (eg. NDA violation stuff), then, well, that sucks but it's not so unreasonable for Sony to pursue the matter.
These are two very separate legal issues. Anyway, the rest of my comment is assuming that it's a copyright claim.
I don't see how Kottke's being a drama queen--if I got a DMCA takedown notice, I'd squeal it from the rooftops and post the text online (but still comply, of course). But anyway, who cares? The point is that he's one of us. What makes anyone think the EFF or Lessig will go leaping for this? Lessig is a professor and an author and a speaker and he's involved in at least one case already (Kahle vs. Ashcroft). It's stupid to assume that Kottke has a lot of help here.
A paypal link really won't help; you need a LOT OF MONEY to counter the kind of legal team Sony can put together. Remember, even if Kottke has a fair use defense here, he probably can't try to use it--he can't afford it against Sony. Nobody can.
Whenever Sony goes after people for posting small clips, whenever some guy is threatened for mixing animated Peanuts characters with Outkast's 'Hey Ya' song (and posting it online for free), whenever Martin Luther King's estate goes after CBS for using his speech without permission, it's something that affects all of us who ever use material that's not 100% in our control.
It doesn't matter whether the person being sued is 'big' or 'small'. This is just violating common sense, and laws that are flagrantly nonsensical should be whined about, protested, and (when there's a chance) smacked down and repealed whenever there's a chance.
Fuck Sony.
posted by Firas at 12:55 PM on December 2, 2004 [1 favorite]
First of all, if the continuing legal issues are based on copyright, I'm really angry. It is frivolous and ridiculous if a copyright violation with a possible fair use exemption is pursued beyond a takedown notice that is complied with.
If it's based on extracting information about the origin of the leak from Kottke (eg. NDA violation stuff), then, well, that sucks but it's not so unreasonable for Sony to pursue the matter.
These are two very separate legal issues. Anyway, the rest of my comment is assuming that it's a copyright claim.
I don't see how Kottke's being a drama queen--if I got a DMCA takedown notice, I'd squeal it from the rooftops and post the text online (but still comply, of course). But anyway, who cares? The point is that he's one of us. What makes anyone think the EFF or Lessig will go leaping for this? Lessig is a professor and an author and a speaker and he's involved in at least one case already (Kahle vs. Ashcroft). It's stupid to assume that Kottke has a lot of help here.
A paypal link really won't help; you need a LOT OF MONEY to counter the kind of legal team Sony can put together. Remember, even if Kottke has a fair use defense here, he probably can't try to use it--he can't afford it against Sony. Nobody can.
Whenever Sony goes after people for posting small clips, whenever some guy is threatened for mixing animated Peanuts characters with Outkast's 'Hey Ya' song (and posting it online for free), whenever Martin Luther King's estate goes after CBS for using his speech without permission, it's something that affects all of us who ever use material that's not 100% in our control.
It doesn't matter whether the person being sued is 'big' or 'small'. This is just violating common sense, and laws that are flagrantly nonsensical should be whined about, protested, and (when there's a chance) smacked down and repealed whenever there's a chance.
Fuck Sony.
posted by Firas at 12:55 PM on December 2, 2004 [1 favorite]
...and even if Kottke did inspire 1,000 people to watch Jeopardy, it's really small potatoes to them. The reach of even a low-rated television show is still far more vast then all but the most influential bloggers.
All I'm saying is that I can understand how they might think that knowing exactly how Jennings lost, with confirmed audio, before the episode aired might discourage, not encourage, people to watch the show.
If kottke's such small potatoes, then what does it matter to them either way? They've got that huge promotional plan in place, what do they care if 1,000 people don't tune in?
Either kottke is an important media outlet (in Sony's eyes) or he's not You can't say he's inconsequential and then say it's important to quash him.
posted by me3dia at 1:04 PM on December 2, 2004
All I'm saying is that I can understand how they might think that knowing exactly how Jennings lost, with confirmed audio, before the episode aired might discourage, not encourage, people to watch the show.
If kottke's such small potatoes, then what does it matter to them either way? They've got that huge promotional plan in place, what do they care if 1,000 people don't tune in?
Either kottke is an important media outlet (in Sony's eyes) or he's not You can't say he's inconsequential and then say it's important to quash him.
posted by me3dia at 1:04 PM on December 2, 2004
I don't know what's legal, but it doesn't make sense to me that someone would be allowed to leak an audio file of a television show before it airs anymore than releasing a movie or album before released would be.
posted by xammerboy at 1:19 PM on December 2, 2004
posted by xammerboy at 1:19 PM on December 2, 2004
What makes anyone think the EFF or Lessig will go leaping for this? Lessig is a professor and an author and a speaker and he's involved in at least one case already (Kahle vs. Ashcroft). It's stupid to assume that Kottke has a lot of help here.
Just watch. And read Matt's post above.
Also, what was lame about JK's post was his oh-so-put-upon tone. Regardless of the legal merits -- and I agree that Sony sucks for pushing JK around -- it is lame to threaten your readers that you just might have to stop writing the precious blog. ("I'm certainly thinking very seriously about whether I can keep this site going in this kind of environment.")
That said -- I enjoy JK's site and hope he keeps it up. But he should appreciate that many would love to have what he has (obvious skills, a great site, huge readership, etc.), and that whining about the burdens of having those things is bad form.
posted by Mid at 1:22 PM on December 2, 2004
Just watch. And read Matt's post above.
Also, what was lame about JK's post was his oh-so-put-upon tone. Regardless of the legal merits -- and I agree that Sony sucks for pushing JK around -- it is lame to threaten your readers that you just might have to stop writing the precious blog. ("I'm certainly thinking very seriously about whether I can keep this site going in this kind of environment.")
That said -- I enjoy JK's site and hope he keeps it up. But he should appreciate that many would love to have what he has (obvious skills, a great site, huge readership, etc.), and that whining about the burdens of having those things is bad form.
posted by Mid at 1:22 PM on December 2, 2004
It's stupid to assume that Kottke has a lot of help here.
True. If this had happened to anyone else, this thread would probably be an anti-Sony lovefest. But a popular, respected weblogger who happens to be a big Jeopardy! fan isn't deserving of support and gets what he deserves.
Typical blogosphere inadequacy issues. Nothing like a little bit of success to earn you a bunch of whining, jealous wannabes.
posted by scottandrew at 1:34 PM on December 2, 2004
True. If this had happened to anyone else, this thread would probably be an anti-Sony lovefest. But a popular, respected weblogger who happens to be a big Jeopardy! fan isn't deserving of support and gets what he deserves.
Typical blogosphere inadequacy issues. Nothing like a little bit of success to earn you a bunch of whining, jealous wannabes.
posted by scottandrew at 1:34 PM on December 2, 2004
Personally, it seems to me when the burdens of your talent and popularity include a legal imbroglio with a massive international corporation, a momentary loss of nerve, a put-upon tone, a little whining are all things that are perfectly understandable. Sheesh.
posted by furiousthought at 1:39 PM on December 2, 2004
posted by furiousthought at 1:39 PM on December 2, 2004
When you use your talents and popularity to basically ask for a fight from a massive international corporation . . . well, duh, look what you get.
And then, not so much with the whining.
posted by Mid at 1:48 PM on December 2, 2004
And then, not so much with the whining.
posted by Mid at 1:48 PM on December 2, 2004
Okay, here's the real question. I didn't hear the MP3, but if the audio was recorded from a separate source in the audience, is it the property of Sony's? Or a spectator recording something for private use?
Seems to me that depending on what was signed, it could be either; Sony property or a private recording. Though a recording for private use would cease to be so by definition the second it was released on the Internet.
posted by Tikirific at 1:57 PM on December 2, 2004
Seems to me that depending on what was signed, it could be either; Sony property or a private recording. Though a recording for private use would cease to be so by definition the second it was released on the Internet.
posted by Tikirific at 1:57 PM on December 2, 2004
Hmm... yeah, that's important. The fact that a work is unpublished makes it harder to make a fair use claim.
Note that the complication still does not make it outright illegal to publish snippets! Depends on the effect on market and a host of other things.
That's the screwed thing about fair use; you can't really know unless you take it to court. And at that point, usually the people with more money win.
posted by Firas at 2:15 PM on December 2, 2004 [1 favorite]
Note that the complication still does not make it outright illegal to publish snippets! Depends on the effect on market and a host of other things.
That's the screwed thing about fair use; you can't really know unless you take it to court. And at that point, usually the people with more money win.
posted by Firas at 2:15 PM on December 2, 2004 [1 favorite]
When Sony isn't busy making the worst electronics I've ever made the mistake of purchasing, they push around bloggers. Nice going, asshats. Nice. I personally don't care if Kottke went to his local theatre, shot video of the latest Sony blockbuster in its entirety, and posted it on his blog. I'd still fail to feel even the most vague shred of sympathy for that malignant, faceless corporation.
Personal feelings aside, did Kottke host the file on his own site, or link to it? If he's not responsible for the MP3's presence on the internet, and he's just linking to it, I don't see how it would make him responsible. If he did host it, I can understand how he might be in some trouble.
posted by mullingitover at 2:28 PM on December 2, 2004
Personal feelings aside, did Kottke host the file on his own site, or link to it? If he's not responsible for the MP3's presence on the internet, and he's just linking to it, I don't see how it would make him responsible. If he did host it, I can understand how he might be in some trouble.
posted by mullingitover at 2:28 PM on December 2, 2004
it doesn't make sense to me that someone would be allowed to leak an audio file of a television show before it airs anymore than releasing a movie or album before released would be.
30 second clip of a show posted, vs. a 2 hour movie released online or a 1 hour music album?
Seems like apples and oranges to me. The copyright claim seems weak, since it's a snippet. Movie trailers are a similar thing -- a preview of an upcoming movie. Even if you posted a leaked trailer (plenty of star wars and LoTR fans look for them), getting a takedown after the fact is about the worst that can happen. Continued pressure seems pointless and petty.
posted by mathowie at 2:56 PM on December 2, 2004
30 second clip of a show posted, vs. a 2 hour movie released online or a 1 hour music album?
Seems like apples and oranges to me. The copyright claim seems weak, since it's a snippet. Movie trailers are a similar thing -- a preview of an upcoming movie. Even if you posted a leaked trailer (plenty of star wars and LoTR fans look for them), getting a takedown after the fact is about the worst that can happen. Continued pressure seems pointless and petty.
posted by mathowie at 2:56 PM on December 2, 2004
I can see the discussion going on now at Sony HQ..
Lawyer 1: This guy is posting copyrighted material on the Internet!
Lawyer 2: (Sharpening claws) Illegaly distributing the property of one of our valuable holdings?? Let's get him!
Lawyer 3: (Rushing in with iBook under arm) WAIT!!! He's a weblogger!
Lawyer 1: (taking off surgical gloves) He has a weblog?? Well, in that case, call off the hounds. It's OK to illegally distribute copyright material if you're some sort of pseudo-celebrity to a small group of narcissistic fanboys.
Laywer 3: (Looking out window in reflective manner) ...And to think, someone could have really gotten hurt if we handn't found out this man's true identity....
posted by djc at 2:58 PM on December 2, 2004
Lawyer 1: This guy is posting copyrighted material on the Internet!
Lawyer 2: (Sharpening claws) Illegaly distributing the property of one of our valuable holdings?? Let's get him!
Lawyer 3: (Rushing in with iBook under arm) WAIT!!! He's a weblogger!
Lawyer 1: (taking off surgical gloves) He has a weblog?? Well, in that case, call off the hounds. It's OK to illegally distribute copyright material if you're some sort of pseudo-celebrity to a small group of narcissistic fanboys.
Laywer 3: (Looking out window in reflective manner) ...And to think, someone could have really gotten hurt if we handn't found out this man's true identity....
posted by djc at 2:58 PM on December 2, 2004
I've never given a good goddamn about this Ken Jennings thing, and can't really understand jkottke's playing with copyright fire in posting about it, other than playing to the inanity-hungry crowd, of course, but nonetheless I must heartily and with my entire being declare : FUCK SONY.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:25 PM on December 2, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:25 PM on December 2, 2004
Timely Op-Ed piece in today's New York Times: "You Can Blog, But You Can't Hide" (free registration required) - The First Amendment can't give special rights to the established news media and not to upstart outlets like Weblogs.
posted by ericb at 3:56 PM on December 2, 2004
posted by ericb at 3:56 PM on December 2, 2004
The referenced NYT link above is to the Op-Ed page ... this is the direct link to "You Can Blog, But You Can't Hide"
posted by ericb at 3:59 PM on December 2, 2004
posted by ericb at 3:59 PM on December 2, 2004
The copyright claim seems weak, since it's a snippet.
Ah, so one might think, fearless leader. But there is case law which says that the fair use doctrine doesn't apply, matter the length of the snippet, if said snippet is the "heart" of what it's been excerpted from. (I want to say that it's Acuff v. Campbell or something to that effect, but don't quote me on that.) The argument can well be made that the Final Jeopardy in question was most certainly the "heart" of the episode in question, but of course that would be a finding of fact for an arbitrator, judge or jury to make.
posted by Dreama at 4:12 PM on December 2, 2004
Ah, so one might think, fearless leader. But there is case law which says that the fair use doctrine doesn't apply, matter the length of the snippet, if said snippet is the "heart" of what it's been excerpted from. (I want to say that it's Acuff v. Campbell or something to that effect, but don't quote me on that.) The argument can well be made that the Final Jeopardy in question was most certainly the "heart" of the episode in question, but of course that would be a finding of fact for an arbitrator, judge or jury to make.
posted by Dreama at 4:12 PM on December 2, 2004
Example for Dreama's point: imagine if he'd posted a certain 30-second snippet of The Crying Game a few days before the film was released.
posted by mmoncur at 4:20 PM on December 2, 2004
posted by mmoncur at 4:20 PM on December 2, 2004
Was the cease and desist letter phrased in the form of a question?
posted by kirkaracha at 4:26 PM on December 2, 2004
posted by kirkaracha at 4:26 PM on December 2, 2004
kirkaracha -- that was fantastic.
On the 1st amendment: I don't understand the argument here. Whatever the merits of Sony's copyright claims, is anyone arguing that what JK did would be shielded by some sort of privilege if he were a "real" journalist? If so, what privilege are we talking about? I don't know of any special reporter privileges that apply to copyright claims.
In other words, isn't the whole blogger/journalist thing not really relevant here?
On the other hand, if Sony is trying to force JK to reveal the source of mp3, then we are probably into the journalist's privilege (or non-privilege) to not disclose the names or sources.
posted by Mid at 4:37 PM on December 2, 2004
On the 1st amendment: I don't understand the argument here. Whatever the merits of Sony's copyright claims, is anyone arguing that what JK did would be shielded by some sort of privilege if he were a "real" journalist? If so, what privilege are we talking about? I don't know of any special reporter privileges that apply to copyright claims.
In other words, isn't the whole blogger/journalist thing not really relevant here?
On the other hand, if Sony is trying to force JK to reveal the source of mp3, then we are probably into the journalist's privilege (or non-privilege) to not disclose the names or sources.
posted by Mid at 4:37 PM on December 2, 2004
Isn't Kottke the guy that posted "MetaFilter is neither Meta nor a Filter. Discuss" or something similar? SEND HIM TO PRISON
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 6:55 PM on December 2, 2004
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 6:55 PM on December 2, 2004
I appeared on "Jeopardy!" a couple of months ago, and then came back and told my students and many of my friends about the results. I hope Sony doesn't come after me. If they do, I can show them my Sony stereo system, and maybe they'll relent.
posted by Dr. Wu at 6:57 PM on December 2, 2004
posted by Dr. Wu at 6:57 PM on December 2, 2004
seriously, it's good to see metafilter getting back to the good ol' days when we posted about kottkeeeee instead of iraq. kotkke is a good man and i was sorry to hear about his kitten.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 6:58 PM on December 2, 2004
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 6:58 PM on December 2, 2004
Isn't Kottke the guy that posted "MetaFilter is neither Meta nor a Filter. Discuss" or something similar? SEND HIM TO PRISON
The evil that was La Kottke!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:29 PM on December 2, 2004
The evil that was La Kottke!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:29 PM on December 2, 2004
I've seen this before. The empty threat to take down the site, the resulting outpouring of support, along with financial rewards, and finally the "thank you all for helping me to go on" post.
Of course, normally it's a camgirl.
posted by justgary at 8:31 PM on December 2, 2004
Of course, normally it's a camgirl.
posted by justgary at 8:31 PM on December 2, 2004
(I want to say that it's Acuff v. Campbell or something to that effect, but don't quote me on that.)
You're thinking of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.
posted by Vidiot at 10:43 PM on December 2, 2004
You're thinking of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.
posted by Vidiot at 10:43 PM on December 2, 2004
normally it's a camgirl.
What makes you think it isn't this time?
posted by crunchland at 6:57 AM on December 3, 2004
What makes you think it isn't this time?
posted by crunchland at 6:57 AM on December 3, 2004
What makes you think it isn't this time?
That's disturbing.
posted by justgary at 3:39 PM on December 3, 2004
That's disturbing.
posted by justgary at 3:39 PM on December 3, 2004
Hey, Mid: Post a third message about Kottke's "massively huge readership." A few people might have overlooked how much your bile is colored by envy.
Kottke wasn't threatening his readers by explaining the fact he may cease to publish. He's just reflecting a reality that will be evident to anyone else whose site grows big enough to attract lawyers but not rich enough to afford any of its own.
When you're in that position, and you get a C&D letter or a subpoena, it can suck the fun out of your publishing hobby. I've gotten several legal threats over the years and when it happens, you start to wonder whether the $50 Google AdSense checks and the admiration of strangers is worth pissing off random corporations.
posted by rcade at 1:50 PM on December 5, 2004
Kottke wasn't threatening his readers by explaining the fact he may cease to publish. He's just reflecting a reality that will be evident to anyone else whose site grows big enough to attract lawyers but not rich enough to afford any of its own.
When you're in that position, and you get a C&D letter or a subpoena, it can suck the fun out of your publishing hobby. I've gotten several legal threats over the years and when it happens, you start to wonder whether the $50 Google AdSense checks and the admiration of strangers is worth pissing off random corporations.
posted by rcade at 1:50 PM on December 5, 2004
Yow, late hit.
Look -- I like his site and think Sony sucks for pushing him around. I don't wish him any harm, and don't think any will come to him besides minor annoyance. It was the tone of this threat to stop posting that I felt was lame.
Also, he seems to be back posting pretty regularly--which sort of confirms the camgirl-esq nature of the threat to leave in the first place.
posted by Mid at 2:00 PM on December 5, 2004
Look -- I like his site and think Sony sucks for pushing him around. I don't wish him any harm, and don't think any will come to him besides minor annoyance. It was the tone of this threat to stop posting that I felt was lame.
Also, he seems to be back posting pretty regularly--which sort of confirms the camgirl-esq nature of the threat to leave in the first place.
posted by Mid at 2:00 PM on December 5, 2004
That guy was very funny and I think it says that Sony has worse marketing that his searches appeared higher than anything they put up too. (http://www.davidbrown.com/)
posted by narebuc at 2:51 PM on December 5, 2004
posted by narebuc at 2:51 PM on December 5, 2004
« Older From Guernica to Fallujah | Sex Ed Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:08 AM on December 2, 2004